The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was SNOW keep--Aervanath (talk) 06:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This portal is humorous in terms of its irony, but it takes as its subject matter doorways, video games and books with "portal" in the name, people whose last name is "portal", geographic locations named "portal" and intangible portals ("His errors are volitional and are the portals to discovery.") As amusing as the title is and as well-constructed as the portal is, Wikipedia is not a random list of facts and this portal is no more appropriate than having a "Burg" portal that covers hamburgers, cities named "...burg" and people whose last name includes "burg". B (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: and I don't see what's wrong with the Burg example either, other than being even less obviously named than the current one. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Portals are to assist in research or engage readers' interest on a common topic. "People whose last name is portal", doors, cities named portal, and intangible portals are not a common topic. --B (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Portals are intended to cover a broad and interesting topic, containing diversified content. "All things with 'portal' in their name" is a far more interesting and diverse topic than any particular portal-related topic, and I was personally quite intrigued to see some of the articles I found when creating it. In fact, I feel it comes quite close to meeting the featured portal criteria, though "useful" is probably pushing it.

But that's just the thing. It doesn't cover a broad and interesting topic. It covers a variety of interesting topics that happen to share their name. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not beat around the bush, though. The main intent is, as you deduced, humorous irony. It is directed mostly towards Wikipedians editing portals (I reckon most people get there via the ((portal)) template on the portal guidelines; the only mainspace link is on portal), but also to those curious to see if there really is such a page. Judging by the response, I think it succeeds in its goal. It also encouraged at least one person - myself - to actually edit some of those articles.

I think the portal reflects positively on Wikipedia, and should remain as a lighthearted example to other editors, but the choice is yours. GreenReaper (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for the many well-explained reasons GreenReaper has given. I found it a fascinating mind-twist/language-play page; I smiled and learnt. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep albeit I am more disposed to allow idiosyncratic exceptions on WP than some others are. No harm, and now apparently in active hands. Collect (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Non-serious keep to allow users to oppose RfAs with the rationale "not enough Portal:Portal talk edits." Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I wouldn't like to see something like this in article space, but I think there's a bit more leeway when it comes to Portals. Frankly, not many people are going to find this one anyway, unless they're looking for it - so I think it's an acceptable piece of self-referential humour (that also functions perfectly well as a portal). Might be worth linking to next April Fool's Day, actually. Terraxos (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.